Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Trolled by a So-Called "Genealogist"

Since I've previously had so much uncalled-for grief from Family Tree DNA and the now-defunct (presumably, unless they merely went into hiding, lol) DNA Forums .org, all of which oddly revolved around their insistent and hard-headed refusal to believe that I have a Cherokee / Native American maternal ancestor (making my mtDNA most likely Cherokee) -- you might think that I wouldn't trust anyone at all connected to either one of them... but oftentimes one must take perilous chances in order to learn the whole truth.

So, I recently joined Family Tree's mtDNA "W" Project group, hoping to learn more about my very rare haplogroup.  Once there however, I found no one else with my probable subclade: W1e; furthermore, I noticed a lot of people seemed to have quickly dropped out of it, and the remaining ones are people who talk non-stop about their ancestors back in the 'old country' of Europe.  My "W" gg-grandmother isn't from there, so it held very little interest for me.  I figured I would just check in every once in awhile, to see if any other Native Americans show up.

In the meantime, I got an unsolicited eMail from one of their 'co-administrators', suggesting that my ancestor was someone she apparently stumbled over in her attempt to disprove my claim.  I spent more than a day and a half of my precious time, only to realize she'd sent me on a wild goose chase.  Her flight of fancy was based on absolutely no evidence at all, and was quite logically flawed anyway.

So this person who claims to be a professional, 1) wasted my time  2) insulted my and my family's intelligence and integrity  3) admitted that her own family was littered with airheads and/or liars, suggesting that is somehow commonplace and normal behavior  4) and finally, the kicker:  tried to sell me more expensive DNA testing.  All of this was done in the spirit of diverting my attention away from the true facts of my case:  away from my Native American ancestry.

Also troubling is the fact that she mined me for personal data, with no real expressed intent to use it for my own benefit.  Whatever makes her think that I would even consider doing business with someone like her, or with any company that she would recommend?

Her first eMail was titled "Cely BIRD POWERS HILBORN",

Hi Debra,
 
I’ve been doing some research regarding Celia BIRD [my ancestor's name was Cely, not "Celia" -- you'd think a 'professional' would try to spell it the same way that our family spells and pronounces it; there was no documented "Celia Bird" to my knowledge -- at least none whom she presented to me in this message]. I know you said you were stuck getting back beyond Steven and Cely, but sometimes people have ideas, even if they have no proof [again she's mistaken, as I'm not one of those people who entertain "ideas" without "proof" -- or at least reasonable evidence].
 
Do you have any ideas about who Celia’s parents were? [I'd already indicated in my application, that I didn't... and again her name is "Cely", not "Celia".]
 
Have you come across any indications that Celia ["Cely"] married a Hardin POWERS who was the father of her son James?  [Yes, that's old news -- not my ancestors.]

I found an 1850 Census with a Celia age 17 wife of Hardin POWERS. Then an 1860 Census where Celia POWERS 30 and James POWERS 3 (lines 1 & 2 in the HilbornePowersC1860b file – hard to read ) are living in the household of Stephen HILBORNE 41, farmer (last line in HilbornC1860a file); and his children Anna J. HILBORNE 10, Alice HILBORNE 15, Clinton HILBORNE 7. All born North Carolina. Am attaching these documents. [Had she investigated the 1870 census, along with the 1850 and 1860 ones for both Ashe and Columbus counties, North Carolina, she would have seen that it's two different women.  Furthermore, my direct maternal ancestor's surname was "Bird" -- not "Powers".  And her husband's name was spelled "Steven Hilburn" -- the way the family spells it.]
 
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Bye for now,
Mary Zucker
Volunteer Co-Administrator, FTDNA Haplogroup W and N2a Project

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

My reply to her first eMail:
 






Thanks, Mary. I've seen the Powers name before in my research, and maybe there is some sort of connection, but I'm not sure about it. Seems all three families (Powers, Hilburn, and Elkins) had connections in that region around that time. A Jonathan Elkins age 33 (my gg-grandfather's name, who was Cely Bird Hilburn's in-law through her daughter, Polly Hilburn's marriage to George W. Elkins), was residing with Charles Powers age 27 in Columbus Co., in 1860. Both men were listed as being in the military. Elijah, George, and Jonathan Elkins could all have been my relatives. I looked at the 1850, 1860 and 1870 Ashe Co. censuses, and the 1850 one with Hardin and "Celia" Powers seems to indicate that they were brother and sister -- not a married couple? In 1860, Hardin is listed with wife "Sela" and several children (including a 2 yr old Sarah). In 1870 Ashe Co., Hardin Powers is listed with perhaps the same woman ("Calie") and 5 children (Sarah, Cicero, Jesse, Andrew, and Susannah). I'm not convinced that this woman is my ancestor.


In this one, "Hilburn" is spelled the same way my family spells it. I didn't find any "Birds" at all in NC during that time. Realizing the state and county lines got moved around quite a bit in those days, it's possible that Cely's family although from the same region, might have been legally in South Carolina.

The listing in the 1860 census of Stephen Hilborne and Celia Powers is interesting, but again I'm not convinced. Cely and Stephen had a daughter named Polly Hilburn Elkins (my g-grandmother), and probably at least one or two other children.

Please don't lose focus of the fact that my grandmother's direct maternal lineage was Indian (probably Cherokee... She's been dead for around 30 yrs now, so I can't bring her into the conversation; but if you met her, her sisters, my uncle, her other family, and saw all the family photos, you would have no trouble believing her, as I do.










%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Then I added:

Mary, this is the link to Polly's gravestone in Florida. Grandma (her daughter) is in the same cemetery.


http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSsr=81&GScid=71834&GRid=33334368&CScn=cedars+of+lebanon&CScntry=4&CSst=11&CScnty=353&

This is Grandma's marker:
 
I'm not sure if Cely was buried there too, with no marker to be found, or in St. Augustine.
 
You asked if I know anything about either Cely's or Stephen's [Steven's, now she's got me mis-spelling it] parents, and unfortunately the answer is no, that's what has me blocked here. I have seen some North Carolina Hilburns listed in "Cherokee By Blood", where they attempted (and failed) to be certified; also of course many "Birds" in those records. But, I haven't been able to make any solid connections there either.

There is a George Taliaferro Elkins buried in St. Augustine, along with other Elkins, but I don't see the connection to our family yet. I believe that Grandma's uncle, Elijah M. Elkins is buried somewhere in Sumter Co. Florida. I know just slightly more about the Elkins' than about the Birds and Hilburns. I know that the Elkins I'm related to, moved to St. Augustine from North Carolina, leaving from the port at Wilmington. Grandma stated that Cely and presumably Stephen [Steven] were from the vicinity of "Fayetteville", NC.
 
If I'm related to the Powers, I don't quite see the connection.
 
Thanks for your help, I know it's really difficult.
Debra

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Her second eMail to me (here, she changes to a blue font, wtf?):
 
Hi Debra,
 
I was especially interested in your lineage because of your Native American connection. I don’t want to disappoint or upset you, but it is quite possible that your grandmother has Native American ancestors and so would look like them. But, keep in mind that non-Native Americans lived among and married into Native American communities. It is likely that W haplogroup women could have become part of these communities. However, there are accepted founder haplogroups for Native Americans and W is not among them. A “direct maternal lineage” for a Native American cannot be a W (not at this time, not according to current evidence). There are articles on the internet about Native American DNA. This is one of them.

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2008/03/17/the-six-founding-native-american-mothers/

So let’s do this.

Please confirm or correct your direct maternal line:

You
Your mother ?THOMPSON
Your grandmother: Mary Gladys ELKINS b. 1902, d. 1984
Her mother: Polly HILBURN b. 1868, d. 1953
Her mother: Cely BIRD
 
It would be helpful to know: 1) How you know that Celia’s maiden name is BIRD? 2) which part of your family is said to have Native American lineage? 3) why were they denied status as Native Americans? 4) Do you have any documentation from a government, a minister/priest, a family Bible, etc. regarding any facts?
 
Bye for now,
Mary

Note...Here, she admitted that her interest in my case is solely or mainly due to my claim of Native American ancestry -- which she disputes based on mickey mouse and incomplete hypothetical DNA "science".  No actual evidence.  She provides no "papertrails" which refute my gg-grandmother's Native American ethnicity -- although when the shoe is on the other foot, government funded, regulated, and supported genealogists always insist Native Americans must have the same in order to receive their recognition as such.  Incredible hypocrisy.

She's trying to force my ethnic / racial profile into a prejudicially pre-established standard of analysis.  They obviously don't care about the real DNA of real Native Americans.  These people are trying to redefine Native Americans as a race of the Federal Government's own choosing, using extremely rigid and narrow criteria.  They have the nerve to call it "science", lol.  They literally and quite stubbornly refuse to take into consideration such logical evidences as familial inheritance and family history.  They wouldn't dare treat any other ethnic or racial group in such a manner.  This is precisely the reason why most Native Americans refuse to be tested or to have anything to do with them.
 

Then, she added her own text to my previous message (causing me more confusion as I now try to sort through all this conversation).  The hi-lighted text is where she attempted to argue with me about the census data:
 







Me [Mary Zucker, in hi-lights] below
From: Debra Denman
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 5:55 PM
To: Mary Zucker
Subject: Re: Cely BIRD POWERS HILBORN
 
Thanks, Mary. I've seen the Powers name before in my research, and maybe there is some sort of connection, but I'm not sure about it. Seems all three families (Powers, Hilburn, and Elkins) had connections in that region around that time. A Jonathan Elkins age 33 (my gg-grandfather's name, who was Cely Bird Hilburn's in-law through her daughter, Polly Hilburn's marriage to George W. Elkins), was residing with Charles Powers age 27 in Columbus Co., in 1860. Both men were listed as being in the military. Elijah, George, and Jonathan Elkins could all have been my relatives. I looked at the 1850, 1860 and 1870 Ashe Co. censuses, and the 1850 one with Hardin and "Celia" Powers seems to indicate that they were brother and sister -- not a married couple?
 
1850 Census reads: Hardin Powers 21, farmer; Celia 17; both born North Carolina. Married within the year - the tick marks indicating this can be hard to see but show up fairly well on FamilySearch.org. But I see what you mean now about Hardin and Sela in 1860 – for some reason they had not come up in later years - but I looked again and there they were.


In 1860, Hardin is listed with wife "Sela" and several children (including a 2 yr old Sarah). In 1870 Ashe Co., Hardin Powers is listed with perhaps the same woman ("Calie") and 5 children (Sarah, Cicero, Jesse, Andrew, and Susannah). I'm not convinced that this woman is my ancestor.
 
On the “far out” side of things --- I see there is a reference to this couple on Ancestry re: Celia TESTERMAN. In the 1860 Census there is a TESTERMAN living with the STIKES family next door to Hardin and Sela ?TESTERMAN? In the 1910 Census for Inglis, Levy, Florida I see George ELKINS 44, husband of Pollie working in what I thought was “Stiler Navil Stores” - but now I’m wondering if it could be ???STIKER Navil Stores. Could not find any reference to these stores in a VERY quick internet search.
This link did not work for me. But I did find it on Ancestry.com
 
In this one, "Hilburn" is spelled the same way my family spells it. I didn't find any "Birds" at all in NC during that time. Realizing the state and county lines got moved around quite a bit in those days, it's possible that Cely's family although from the same region, might have been legally in South Carolina.
The listing in the 1860 census of Stephen Hilborne and Celia Powers is interesting, but again I'm not convinced. Cely and Stephen had a daughter named Polly Hilburn Elkins (my g-grandmother), and probably at least one or two other children. There is a Polly in the 1870 and 1880 Census.
The 1850 Census reads: Stephen HILBORN 31, farmer; Eliza A. 32, Alice P. 4, Anna J. 11/12. All born North Carolina.
The 1860 Census reads: Stephen HILBORNE 41, farmer, Celia POWERS 30, James POWERS 3, Anna J. HILBORNE 10, Alice HILBORNE 15, Clinton HILBORNE 7. All born North Carolina.
1870 Census: Stephen HILBURN (sp) 52, farmer; Seala (sp) 41, Clinton 18, James 10, Catherine 8, Milla 6, Polly 4, Hamilton 5/12.
1880 Census: Steven HILBORN 65, farmer; Celia 54, wife; Catherine 18; Milly 16; Polly 14, Hamilton 12, all farm laborers; Asbury 7 grandson. Living next door to James HILBORN 24 ?trade?, wife is Winnie J. 20; married within the census year. All born North Carolina.

Please don't lose focus of the fact that my grandmother's direct maternal lineage was Indian (probably Cherokee)... She's been dead for around 30 yrs now, so I can't bring her into the conversation; but if you met her, her sisters, my uncle, her other family, and saw all the family photos, you would have no trouble believing her, as I do.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

This is my reply to Mary's second eMail (I hadn't yet noticed her lengthy refutations and arguments which she'd added to my previous reply, so didn't address them here.  They were irrelevant to the question of my gg-grandmother's race or ethnicity anyway -- the focus of her entire argument.  Further, they shed no more light on Cely's and Steven's parentage, the subtheme of her argument against Cely's racial status.)

Hi Mary, I understand about all the difficulties of proving Native American ancestry. "not at this time, not according to current evidence" is the key to the problem. I've read the articles on the subject, and I realize that the evidence for W1e (or whatever my subclade actually is -- around the time many of those articles were written I was first reported as an "X", by ftDNA; now my clade is considered one of the "W"s) being Native American will never be established, as long as the status quo continues working against it. All of the other "Native American" haplogroups, the ones which have long been listed as the 'only ones' -- are also found in the Old World. So it's quite probable that the same is true for other more ancient lineages which haven't been "certified" yet. I understand that I'm not the only individual in the same quandary; also conversely, I'm aware of the many frauds, bribes, and forgeries that have been committed by people who have gotten tribal membership with "paperwork".
I personally do not seek tribal membership (although most people I talk to seem to jump to that conclusion), for several reasons which I won't go into. Because of current tribal law, I wouldn't get it, anyway. So I have no ulterior motive for stating the truth. Furthermore, my object here is not to prove my ancestry [[ie, my ethnicity with respect to my maternal lineage]] to myself, you, or anyone; because I already know what it is, and am not concerned with what anyone else believes about me. My main object here, is to learn who my ancestors were: their names, backgrounds, occupations, etc. -- as much family history as possible. I just want to fill in those particular branches of my otherwise rather extensive family tree. The fact that one of my ancestors was Native American seems to cause unnecessary or unavoidable problems in my search.
 
My mother is Betty Jo Thompson (b1938- ), born in Williston, FL; her mother was Mary Gladys Elkins (1902-1984), born in St. Augustine, FL; her mother was Polly Hilburn (1868-1953), probably born in NC; and her mother was Cely Bird (ca1840s-ca1920s), probably born in the Southern Appalachian region, NC, or SC ... all of these mentioned are "W"s.
 
Here is a photograph of the relevant page from a letter to me from my grandmother, Mary Gladys. It's the nearest thing I have to a "family bible":

Translated into language that others may understand, it reads, ""My mother's name was Polly Hilburn Elkins. Mama's daddy's [her maternal grandfather's] name was Steven Hilburn. [Her maternal] Grandma's name was Cely Bird Hilburn. Bird is an Indian name. My daddy's name was George Washington Elkins. His mother's name was Nancy [Nobles] Elkins, & his daddy was Jonathan Elkins. Yes we were part Indian..."
I've seen very old photos of my grandmother, her sisters and brothers, her mother (Polly Hilburn) and father, and her grandmother (Cely Bird). All except her father were obviously Native American, and Cely's photo showed the woman dressed in traditional, authentic Cherokee attire. I've also personally met three of Grandma's sisters (Hattie, Thelma, and Cely): all were unusually tall women like Grandma and Mother; and all were very obviously of Native descent, including not only their appearance but also their mannerisms. I'm so sorry that I don't have them to show to you, but here is one of my grandmother when she was older:
(Mary Gladys Elkins -- sorry so grainy, but was taken in the early 1970's, before digital cameras.)
(A very grainy photo of me when younger.)
(Mother, when only around 20 yrs old.)

I believe it's possible that Isham Hilburn and Jennie Hilburn Shores (both of Alabama) may have been Polly's siblings [[or cousins, now that I see the additional census data]]. Both of them were rejected based solely on Jennie's "failure to appear" for the official hearing on her own case.

Sincerely, Debra

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I'd tried to offer her information which might actually help her to help me to find out the true facts in my case,  the missing pieces of the puzzle, but she doggedly ignored it and persisted in her little charade, causing me to lay awake most of last night wondering what is she really up to?  Whatever is really motivating her, is not how she represents herself to me.

Her final eMail to me, filled with empty, irrelevant trollish chatter and coy inuendos -- proving that she's one of those people I would never choose to do business with:
Hi Debra,
I understand that this has a great deal of meaning to you. As I mentioned previously, I was especially interested in your genealogy because of your Native American connection. I know how hard it is to research Native American (First Nations in Canada) heritage as I have been helping a cousin who has a Native American grandmother. I know a little something about how hard it is to be recognized as a tribe as the Abenaki in Vermont have been trying for years and this February were on course to be recognized. If you could prove that Cely’s line is Native American that would be ground breaking. I would like to see you be successful.
 
In the Haplogroup W Project we have 390 members. Our members are from Finland, India, Germany, England, Azores, Sicily, Jewish, and an American black woman. One of our inside jokes is that the W women got around. Peter and Thena work on sorting out the mtDNA groups. I try to help people find their most distant documented ancestors. Like you and I many of our members want to know what their ancestors lives were like, who they traveled with and where they went, etc. Some want to know about their ancestors before written records and surnames existed. If we do not have a sufficient number of accurate names and locations for our subclades, then that is no help to those in the subclade as well as other researchers. I see that your subclade reports locations from a variety of places.
 
Some of my stories.
I tested mtDNA HVR1 & HVR2. A match who had only tested HVR1 got in touch with me. She did the HVR2 test – we were still a match. She had a very good paper trail that her brother had worked on for years. It was a hint. After a LOT of work, I found out how we were related (same gr* grandmother, different gr* grandfathers).

I had been told since I was a child that another person and I were cousins; but no one knew how. This winter I was going through some recipes from my grandmother (deceased for 38 years). I found one that said, Aunt Sele’s Wartime Cake. I looked through my tree for appropriate names, dates, etc. and figured out this was my grandmother’s Aunt Arcelia and it was through her marriage that I was related to this other person. BTW – my grandmother told me that we were related to the Duke of Wellington – lots of Wellington middle names in the family. So far, this is NOT true. My grandmother told me there was an “Indian Princess” in the family – not true. My mother told me we were related to the Clark of Lewis & Clark – not true.
 
One branch of my family cannot be proved to have the surname that gr* grandfather b. 1802 reports as being his surname.
 
My paternal line is very well documented; however there is a significant gap around 1750 in Sandwich, Massachusetts. We match with a branch of the family, and are quite certain where we came from in England. When I entered who we descended from in England in the FTDNA Surname project many people got in touch with me as they had the same brick wall and wanted to know how I had proved the ancestor in England – I couldn’t. The Administrator asked me to change it. I changed it, and the Administrator put us in the proper grouping by location – so it worked out. Now if we could just find the “gap” ancestor a lot of people would be happy.
Have you been in touch with any of your W matches? Have you uploaded your results to mitoSearch? Since you have no documentation for Cely and beyond, have you thought about Family Finder testing to find other matches? After doing mtDNA (HVR1 & HVR2) and YDNA my husband had no meaningful matches for 5 years. We did the Family Finder test. Within a month a cousin got in touch with me and had a lot of information about part of his family. She helped clear up how he was related to a cousin he has known for years. They knew they were cousins, but never knew how. I just signed up for Family Finder and had my son tested a couple of months ago.
Hope this was helpful. Please keep me posted on how you’re doing.
Bye for now,
Mary

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

No, Mary Zucker, it was not helpful at all.

Also, yes, I've uploaded my results to mitoSearch, and on mitoSearch I find NO exact matches to my DNA.  Family Tree DNA reported directly to me on my account webpage, that one person, "Terry Dean Harmon", supposedly shares my exact DNA code.  They provided me with this person's eMail, but not with the person's published results -- so knowing this company's shady practices, I don't put much stock in it.  I would never contact that person, don't even know if it's a real person or a sock puppet.

Talking to them (the self-proclaimed genealogists and DNA testing companies) is like talking to any other trolls (whether con-artists, bureaucrats, cops, doctors, or online hackers, etc.) -- like talking to the wind, talking to the walls; there comes a time when you have to put your foot down and say, "No more conversation with trolls".

But at least I now know what motivates them.   It was worth the aggravation.

Looking back over her census arguments today (which I hadn't even noticed before), some of that data -- both in Levy county, Florida, and in North Carolina -- probably is pertinent to my ancestry.  However,  men of those times often married more than once (women often died young in childbirth or complications thereof), so Steven Hilburn may have had a wife or two, prior to Cely; and Mary is wrong to insist that Cely Bird was not Cherokee, while admitting that we "might" have Indian blood somewhere in the family tree -- I know without doubt that she was.  She's hellbent on proving that "W" is not Cherokee, with no real evidence whatsoever.  Also, she shed absolutely no light on who Cely's or Steven's parents were -- which could clear a lot of things up.  I still don't see the connection with the Powers, if there is one -- and she didn't provide that for me.

I'm open-minded:  had she provided real, solid proof about Cely Bird that would refute what my Grandmother had related to me, and the photograph of the woman which I saw with my own eyes -- there would be no argument.  But all she did was argue the point baselessly, and that irritates me.  She and others of her ilk have a decided agenda of exclusion, when it comes to Native American ancestry.  It must involve money or politics, for them to be so underhanded and rude about it.

Nowhere in her arguments, does she present any real evidence that my gg-grandmother was not Cherokee, or that her surname was anything other than "Bird".  Yet that seems to have been the entire focus of her messages.  Why?

She insulted me (and my whole family) and wasted a great deal of my time, ineffectively attempting to prove that I'm "mistaken" about my gg-grandmother being Cherokee (or at very least, Native American).  Yet as always with these charlatans, she proved not a damn thing.  She offered evidence only of the people I already knew about, nothing about their parentage, and nothing at all about their race -- which for some reason is what she seems most concerned about, nevertheless.  She kept bringing the subject up, over and over again in her messages.  She also threw in a lot of extraneous evidence that shows no real connection to my family.  I'm so pissed.  I despise trolls.

The census data which she claims proves Cely Bird is instead Celia Powers -- she failed to provide me with photostat copies.  Why would she provide some of them and not the others?  I'm supposed to take her word for it?  Lol.

She provided me with pictures of the 1850 and 1860 censuses, but not of the 1870 and 1880 ones.  I didn't see Polly in the 1850, 1860 or 1870 ones; and I don't have access to the 1880 one.  Also, if Cely Bird really is Celia Powers and she was previously married to Hardin Powers -- then Powers is obviously her married name, from her previous marriage.  It doesn't prove that her maiden name was not Bird (nor does it even provide any information at all about her maiden name).  Wow, I'm so exhausted from all this.  I don't need this sort of bullshit.

She also insists that Celia and Hardin Powers were a married couple; and that isn't what the census data seems to indicate.  It seems to show that they were siblings.  But, I don't know for sure now; I'll have to spend many more hours looking over hard-to-read and difficult to access old census records, trying to figure out if there is any truth to her claims that this woman (or any of those women) is / are "Cely Bird".  Her arguments are terribly confused and illogical for anyone to make any real sense of it.  She seems to just be trying to cast doubt on my own simple story, without actually providing any real proof that there's anything wrong with it.

If she were sincerely trying to be helpful to me, I wouldn't be bothered by it; but it is so obviously based in racial prejudice, and very disturbing.

She based her entire attitude and argument on her unsubstantiated belief or desire that my ancestor not be Native American -- flying in the face of all the evidence which I have presented to her, and have seen with my own eyes, that she is...  Like talking to the wind.

She has no idea what a mistake it is, to treat my family like fools.

A couple more major flaws in her logic:

1.  Census data regarding race is notoriously inaccurate, and was often the subject of census-taker fraud or errors; also of occasional frauds on the part of those being counted.  Lots of politics then (as now, only for somewhat different reasons) surrounding racial issues.  Census data is not a reliable indicator of race.  There's all kinds of online material covering these facts concerning race and the census bureau.

2.  "Native American" is a diversified ethnicity, not a race.  Native Americans are simply those people who inhabited America prior to 1492.  Natives are characterized more so by their chronology and geography -- than by their races, which are in reality combinations of many different discernible blends, depending on the particular tribe.

Some clans of the Cherokee and certain other tribes were described by Early American historians as being "whiter" than most Indians.  They weren't 'mistaken', stupid, or crazy, any more than my grandmother was when she told me GG-Grandmother was "Indian".  The government simply labels people with those derogatory terms, whenever we don't agree with their agenda.

Not all Native Americans' mtDNA or yDNA will fit into the Mongoloid (or "Asian") racial category.  In fact, three of the five mtDNA haplogroups accepted by the US Government as "Native American", are in fact Caucasoid (A, B, and X); only C and D are Mongoloid.  Ditto for Native American yDNA haplogroups:  they don't all fit into the Mongoloid category, some are Caucasoid.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's also certain Negroid clades in Native blood, too.

In Europe, even in ancient European families, not all of their DNA is Caucasoid.  Some Mongoloid and Negroid DNA is found there also.  "Whites" are not Caucasoid (they're Aryan), they're a blend of all three races, just as are Native Americans, Hispanics, and most ethnic groups.  It's just a matter of one race being predominant among some of the groups.  In Europe, the predominant race is Caucasoid.  In Africa, it's Negroid, in Asia, Mongoloid.  Australian aboriginees, Polynesians, and Indonesians also have distinct combinations of the three races.  None are purely all of one race.

There is much literature regarding the Caucasoid early origins of Native Americans.  They predate the immigrations from Asia and Polynesia.  Anyone choosing to ignore the real facts, is a racist.  It's not my problem that my mtDNA happens to be Caucasoid, while I'm Native American matrilineally.  To try to force Native Americans to all be Mongoloid -- is racist.  It's no different than forcing all Hispanics to be Caucasoid -- yet that is exactly what our US government attempts to do.

Maybe some ethnic groups welcome the opportunity to be classified as "White" on government forms.  And why wouldn't they, knowing how much better treatment, privileges and favors is afforded to "white" (ie Aryan) people (especially if they're blond and blue-eyed).  Some other ones desire to exclude certain races.

I understand that Jews (who've historically usually categorized themselves as "White") now claim that they are a distinctly separate race, but the truth is that they're a variable blend of races, depending on what type of Jew (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, etc.).  And with all their Neanderthal genes, perhaps even multi-species.  They're not a distinct race, but an ethnic group (like Hispanics or Native Americans).

However, classifying people by color, like "Black", "White", "Red", "Brown" or "Yellow" -- is racist; because race is not strictly about color.  Race is about genetic inheritance, family; color is only about superficial appearances, or looks.  And ethnicity has little more relation to race than it does to color.  Like race, ethnicity is about family ties, more so than about color.  (And as I mentioned before, 'race' and 'ethnicity' are not the same thing and should never be used interchangibly to classify people).  Yet all of the United States census and other official governmental forms present race as if it is about color.

Furthermore, they have designated some ethnic groups as belonging to certain colors:  ie Hispanics are considered "white" by our government along with some other groups.  With color categories like "white" and "black", it's strange that they don't say "yellow" for Asian, "brown" for Other, and "red" for Native Americans.  It's apparent that their main color preoccupation is with "blacks" and "whites".   Or, that they're merely more open about those two categories, with the Asian, Other, and Native American 'colors' being simply implied.

I believe the main reason the government prefers using the name of a color, "white", regarding the Caucasoid race, is due to their Aryan pride.  The ethnic term,  "Aryan", literally means "white" and/or "shining one".  And the Aryans have a long history of enslaving people who are not like them:  not "white".  That's proof enough that our government and all of their trolls are racists.

The Aryans (who in reality are just another ethnic group, a uniquely diversified and variable blend of Human races and Neanderthal hybrid sub-species) call themselves the "white", "shining ones" and promote themselves as being somehow "superior" to all others.  Historically, they have repeatedly and persistently proclaimed the "right" to rule and own other Human beings.  They've even claimed the right to rule and legally possess their own spouses:  their women.  They also own animals, and bloodlines are extremely important to them.  Their kings and higher castes have historically impregnated as many Human women as possible, through various means including rape -- with their own sperm.

Aryans are not a race, they're an ethnic group; yet for appearances sake, their elite members have usually preferred to be associated strictly with the Caucasoid race and no other -- regardless of the facts.  To that end, they've purposefully and falsely projected the definition of 'Caucasoid' to mean "white".  They began doing so, long before DNA science proved that race has very little to do with color; but they seem to have difficulty breaking bad habits.  Maybe they don't like admitting they are wrong.  After all, how can one be wrong, if one is "superior"?

Likewise, despite the truth about their DNA, most elitist Aryans haven't wanted to be associated with Native Americans, Africans, or Asians.  So they've labelled them "colored" (ie black, red, yellow, brown -- "not white").  In the past up to the present, elitist Aryans usually forbade themselves to marry into any but the Caucasoid race -- which they also judged until recently, strictly by color... blond or red hair; blue or green eyes; light, creamy golden skin tones, certain bone structures which turn out to be Neanderthal, lol, etc.

Why did the genealogists have to bring race into it?  I've never had anything to prove -- I know that I can take my grandmother's word that we're Native American.  It's not my problem that genealogists often have flakes in their family tree, people who make up fantasies about themselves.  Besides, I've seen Cely Bird Hilburn's photograph -- and I know that I'm not stupid, 'mistaken', crazy or lying, either.  The government and all their trolly minions need to get their shit together.

If the racists can successfully prove that my Cherokee maternal lineage was not Cherokee (or at least, Native American) -- more power to them.  But they haven't done so yet; and I don't expect that it will ever happen.  Just repeating it over and over again, doesn't make it fact.

The reason communication has broken down between this genealogist and myself, is because she is focused mainly on proving the race of my gg-grandmother.  She has provided nothing of any value to me:  no information about the family that I don't already have or couldn't easily get myself.  And what's worse is, she believes and has tried to convince me that she has found proof that Cely Bird was "white" (using census data, for a woman who hasn't even been proven to be my gg-grandmother).  Even if she turns out to be my ancestor, it proves nothing about her actual race or (ethnicity to be more precise).

So what if "W" is Caucasoid?  It doesn't mean it (at least my particular subclade of it) can't also be Native American.  You can't use 'scientific data' to disprove things that haven't yet been proven.  And I personally don't need "science" to inform me of what I already know, my family heritage, my identity.  If as in some other people's cases, I had any doubts about my grandmother's sanity or a total lack of information (as with many adoptees or orphans), then I might try to rely on DNA geneticists to help me straighten out the facts.  But I see very clearly now, that I'm very fortunate not to need their assistance in regards to my racial or ethnic identity.

I had the best grandmother in the world, and the best family all around (both sides of it)... love you, Grandma.  I love all of them, and feel a great sense of pride in my ancestors, too (even if some of them remain a mystery to me).

First Timothy 1:4 ~~ "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do."

Titus 3:8-9 ~~ "This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

This genealogist talked down to me in a condescending and mocking manner ("Indian Princess" is one of their favorite jokes, when ridiculing a person's Native status -- I've heard them use that against me several times before, on DNA-forums. org), like an interrogator.  It's as if the Inquisition has never really ended.  I won't stand for it.

Me, age 13.


I'm the only one in my whole family who has hair exactly like Cely Birds' (although my eldest daughter's hair is very similar)...  thick and wavy, like these Tuscarora women illustrated by a Spanish explorer and historian:

Some early historians commented on the Tuscarora's tall stature (they stood at least six inches taller than the Spaniards, on average), and their mysteriously "Greek"-looking physical features.


Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues was intimately involved in early American French Huguenot history.  Le Moyne was appointed by the King of England to accompany the expedition to Florida which ended when the Spanish under de Avila, attacked and massacred nearly the whole group of Huguenot settlers.  His work may be considered quite accurate and reliable, contrary to the beliefs of some people who stubbornly and falsely deny that there were Caucasian types of Native Americans.  Le Moyne was not the only historian of the time, who noticed the different anthropological types of people and tribes in North America.
Another Le Moyne illustration.  Notice his attention to detail (he was employed by the King of England to be a recorder of scientific facts through his drawings).  The Indians in this picture do not all look alike, nor do they all have the same skin color.  Some are wearing a little paint in places, but you can still see their actual skin color, too.  At least two of these individuals have very fair, Caucasoid type skin color, while the others appear more Mongoloid and comparatively much darker in tone.

"The Tuscaroras, related to the Iroquois, lived in north Carolina, where they maintained friendly relations with the colonists.  Trouble began when the white settlers began to take advantage of the Tuscaroras, encroaching on their farmland, cheating them in trades, and in some cases kidnapping and selling their children into slavery.  In retaliation, Tuscarora warriors, under Chief Hancock, raided white villages in 1711.  The war quickly escalated.  In a final standoff, Colonel James Moore led his men, aided by Yamasee Indians, into the Tuscarora village of  Neoheroka in 1713, killing and capturing one thousand inhabitants.  Many were then sold into slavery to finance the war effort.  the surviving Tuscaroras migrated to New York, where in 1722 they became the sixth nation in the Iroquois League."

(So, the Tuscaroras were related somehow to the Cherokees, too:  both are Iroquois.)


"In 1835, the constitution on North Carolina was revised, instituting a state-wide disenfranchisement of Indians people. Indians—mixed, or full blood, were now officially “free persons of color.” This included “the ancestors of the present-day Lumbee and Tuscarora….” 23, p159

"As “free persons of color” Indians “lost the right to keep and bear arms, to vote, to testify against Whites in court, to sit on a jury, to attend state-supported schools, and to select ministers for their churches. Most of these are rights that turned out to be directly related to land ownership, although the possession of property by free persons of color did not come under direct legislative assault.” 23, p159"

Here, I'm a toddler.

A more recent photo


My original DNA certificate from Family Tree DNA, clearly categorizing me and my family as "X".  They updated our category about 3 years later, but not the 'science' behind their definition of "Native American".  I'd already known that I was Indian, before I got this piece of 'paper'; so it didn't surprise me in the least - nor did I presume to prove my ethnicity with this test.  I was only curious, and I already knew beyond any shadow of doubt, that I'm maternally Native American.

Not one single person in my classification on mitosearch, has yet been found who carries the 16189C mutation like we do.  16189C is linked to a predisposition to diabetes in indigenous peoples worldwide, due to our modern cultures' currently sorry dietary and work habits.  My family has always eaten quite healthy though, so most of us have escaped that problem.  I now have diabetes, but not because of poor health habits.
 
UPDATE:  I really thought I had diabetes (had very similar symptoms), but that's been ruled out now, thankfully.  It was probably adrenal failure instead.

UPDATE:  The above listed genetic mutations are differences from the cSRS.  The following are my mtDNA's differences to the new RSRS:  A16129G, T16187C, G16230A, C16292T, C16295T, C16311T.

It's interesting to note that either way, we still have six differences; and that two of them (C16292T and C16295T) are different from both standards.
 
So, Genographic classified me as "X"; then Family Tree DNA reclassified me as "projected W1e" (pending further testing); now, James Lick's mitohap site classifies me as a probable "X2m1".  Hopefully, I can soon afford further testing.
 

My eldest daughter, Emily, looks a lot like me (only much prettier).  We both had blond baby hair, with the same characteristic growth formation on top (Mom called it my little pony-tail).  Our hair turned reddish brown in childhood and early adolescence, then darker brown later on.  We both have similar builds, too (she's a bit taller than me).  Similar personalities (somewhat reserved and introverted, but intellectually intense).  We're both artists, too (she's very talented).

This website discusses the genetic similarities between Cherokees and Jews.  Any genetic genealogist must be quite aware of all the evidence to that effect, posted online.  So, why do they continue in their nasty attempts to discredit those claims?  Mary Zucker pointed out that "W" is found among Jews; and I noticed on the MyFamily forum, that most of the threads there seemed to be initiated by people of Jewish ancestry.  Do they dislike being associated with Native Americans?

"My Great-Great Grandfather Jerry was a full-bloodied Cherokee, so was his wife, yet on the U.S. Census record for their household they have race: White. This is because they were forced to give up their heritage, it was best just to blend in."

... That's what my mother and her siblings tried to do: just blend in.  That's why it took my grandmother's impending death, for me to finally find out the whole truth (I was 26 yrs old and already pregnant with my second child, Emily, when Grandma told me).  I told my mother later, that she should be proud to be Cherokee, not ashamed.
 
I'm sure that is why Grandma and her mother were attracted to blond, blue-eyed, Aryan types of husbands, as well... they wanted to blend their children into the dominant society, for their own good.  On the other hand, Aryan types of men may have been attracted to them, too; because that seems to have been the case with me, a brown-eyed, brown-haired girl, with a very fair but ruddy (ie reddish, not golden) complexion.

An article about Jerusalem's "Tomb of the Shroud", which has been reported to contain five individuals with mtDNA "W".  Early on, it was reported that the Tomb was sealed when discovered; but now I see that the government is claiming that it has previously been looted.  Is that because one of the bodies is missing?  LOL.  The government just changes their stories to fit whatever "facts" they wish to promote... propaganda.

More discussion about the links between Cherokees and "Jews" (ie Israelites).  I get the impression that Jews are in denial about it, and that most Cherokees are quite frankly insulted by their attitude.  If they have received the same kind of treatment that I have from Jewish "genealogists", then I certainly can understand the Cherokees' anger, even hostility toward them.

I believe the split within the tribe occurred mostly in ancient times, during the Israeli diasporas, when they escaped slavery from Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and other of the Fertile Crescent empires.  Only the most intelligent, wisest of them left the scene, while the more dim-witted and submissive ones stayed put, choosing to blend in and 'play nice' with the foreign conquerors.  The ones who departed are referred to erroneously by "Jews" as, "the 'Lost Tribes'".  The "Jews" are descended from those who stayed behind in Asian Minor, Asia, North Africa, and Europe, accepting serfdom from the Pagan barbarians.

With such vast geographical and chronological distances, it's only natural that although very similar (ie similar mtDNA and other genes), the New World Israelites (among them, some Cherokees) and the Old World variety of "Jews" are not the same animal anymore.  I doubt they're even the same species at this point.  But that doesn't negate the fact that Cherokees originated in ancient times, in the Levant region.  And that we're somehow fairly closely related to them (in comparison to other populations).

It's just shameful how the Jews treat Cherokees, generally speaking (it happens way too often).


This map illustrates the wide range of DNA from "Europoids".  I'm constantly (and rudely) informed by genealogists that mtDNA "W" (the whole haplogroup, every clade of it, apparently in their opinion) is "European", as if European and Native American DNA are somehow mutually exclusive.  This map shows that Europoid (Caucasoid) DNA travelled to both Northern India and Northeastern Russia or Siberia, in ancient times.  The most ancient remains found in North America, are Caucasoid.  Who are they trying to kid?  Just because Caucasoid Indians are now rare, doesn't mean we 'don't exist'.

*******************************************************************

Quoted from the most recent (July 10,2012) Coast to Coast AM newsletter:

On Monday's show, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford since 1997, Bryan Sykes, discussed some of his fascinating DNA research findings, including his study of American genetics.  The United States' population contains a convergence of DNA from a number of continents, with interesting crossovers such as some African Americans having European genes.  According to earlier research (not done by Sykes), Native Americans actually originated from Siberia, China, ***and even Europe***, but the DNA blood testing that yielded these results was done without their consent, and thus raised controversy and ire, he detailed.  Interestingly, some people from Britain have been found to have Native American genes, he added.

Sykes described his work on the "Seven Daughters of Eve."  Astonishingly, almost everyone in Europe has mitochondrial (maternal) DNA they inherited from one of seven actual women who lived between 10,000 and 45,000 years ago.  Additionally, there are "36 maternal ancestors spread throughout the world," he noted.  It's suspected that Genghis Khan also established a legacy, with his particular Y chromosome shared among some 15 million males in Asia.  The Y (male) chromosome in general has been subject to more degeneration and mutation than the X (female) chromosome, and if this continues males might eventually become extinct, he warned.

In his latest project, Sykes is doing DNA testing of suspected Yeti and Bigfoot hair samples in tandem with the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.  So far, some of the samples have turned out to be from bears.  If the results indicate an unknown species, he said could compare DNA sequences and place the species somewhere on the evolutionary tree, such as between chimps and humans.  Recent evidence has shown that in addition to Neanderthals, there were other human-type species living concurrently with homo sapiens, and Sykes posited that Bigfoot and Yeti might be "small relic populations of these other human species."

So, scientific data does support the theory, that Native Americans were not all Asian, Polynesian and/or Siberian.

****************************************************************


"John Sevier, Governor of Tennessee, wrote to a Major Stoddard of the U.S. Army about a discussion he had had with the Major Chief of the Cherokee, Oconostota, in 1792. The venerable old chief informed him that, according to his forefathers, the white people who had formerly inhabited the country had made ancient fortifications on the Highwassee River now called Carolina. A battle took place between the Whites and the Cherokees at the Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River. After a truce and exchange of prisoners, the Whites agreed to leave the area, never to return, eventually settling 'a great distance' up the Missouri.

"The Chief's ancestors claimed 'they were a people called Welsh and they had crossed the Great Water'. Governor Sevier also claimed to have been in the company of a Frenchman who informed him that he had been high up the Missouri and 'he had traded with the Welsh tribe; that they certainly spoke much of the Welsh dialect, and though their customs were savage and wild, yet many of them, particularly the females, were very fair and white.'"

Lol, I find irony everywhere... It blows me away, that my own ancestor was a witness to the very same controversy that I'm now living out today.  Governor / General John Sevier was my 6th great-grandfather, on Dad's side of the family tree.

There are enough legends and stories about it, among people who kept their histories orally, to give it serious consideration.  Good thing they didn't rely on written records only (like American civilization), because they would surely have lost all or most of it in the many wars, arsons and political coups.

However, according to the website cited here above, there exists written records in England which would also support the theory that Native Americans are not all Asian, Polynesian, and/or Siberian.

Besides the early Welsh settlers and the earliest American Caucasoid mummies (Windover, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc.) which date from the Paleolithic and/or early Neolithic age -- there is documentation that Leif Ericcson, a norse Viking, also visited the New World (around 1000 AD).  So... why are some people still in such adamant denial?  It must be greed-based politics, there's no other way to explain it.

**************************************************

Near the bottom of this page, is a nice map of W Subclade Origins and Migration Routes.
Here is a map showing where W subclades are most concentrated, in the modern population.  At least, according to current data, supposedly (what they haven't thrown out, anyway).  Notice that the New World is not represented here... Scientists haven't got much of a clue about Native American mtDNA (and the way they're going, they probably never will know the real truth about it -- they're more concerned about funding and politics).

***************************************************

(An interesting Anthropology blog).

*************************************************

""VERY IMPORTANT FIND: 1719 South Carolina Assembly in determining who should be "indian" for tax purposes (Indian slaves were adjudged at a lower tax rate than negro slaves..so the idea is to get as much tax as possible...remember, censuses were also intended to assess the taxable citizens in any given area, so race was determined by what the census enumerator felt that the person should be taxed as.) The Act passed that year stated "And for preventing all doubts and scruples that may arise what ought to be rated on mustees, mulattoes, etc. all such slaves not entirely Indian should be accounted as negro." Inference: persons of Indian blood less than full-blood would be legally documented as "negro". ""

MORE RELEVANT LINKS

("...long believed extinct..." --- wrong, again.)

Wikipedia reference on the Saponi People webpage:

Jack D. Forbes, "The Use of Racial and Ethnic Terms in America: Management by Manipulation", Wicazo SA Review, Fall 1995, vol. XI, No. 2, pp. 55, 58-59. Pages 58 and 59: "In 1857, a William Chavers was charged "as a free person of color" with carrying a shotgun. Chavers was able to win his case eventually...because he is charged as "a free person of color" whereas...the act...makes it penal for any "free negro" to carry arms...Free persons of color maybe...persons colored by Indian blood. The indictment cannot be sustained." Page 55: "In 1719, South Carolina decided who should be an "Indian" for tax purposes since American [Indian] slaves were taxed at a lesser rate than African slaves. The act stated: "And for preventing all doubts and scruples that may arise what ought to be rated on mustees, mulattoes, etc. all such slaves as are not entirely Indian shall be accounted as negro." This is an extremely significant passage because it clearly asserts that "mustees" and "mulattoes" could be persons of part American [Indian] ancestry. My judgment (to be discussed later) is that a mustee was primarily part-African and American [Indian], and that a mulatto was usually part-European and American [Indian]. The act is also significant because it asserts that part-American [Indian]s with or without African ancestry could be counted as Negroes, thus having an implication for all later slave census[es]."

So, our government has a history of manipulating facts, especially those regarding race and / or ethnicity.  All based on greed and politics.

From Racism to Genocide:  Anthropology in the Third Reich

Most of the more outspoken and fanatical online "Anthropologists" (including Andrew Auernheimer) whom I've encountered, are extremely racist and narcissistic.  Auernheimer is a Nazi, too.  It's looking now like Dienekes is also.

*****************************************************

(Where I got my original test done.)

*****************************************************

More evidence of the nasty politics surrounding the issue of Native American identity.  Lots of people getting banned from discussion forums, for arguing with the "authorities".


**************************************************



Ironically, Mary Zucker has just posted this thread regarding ~Jewish~ identity, LMAO.  HYPOCRITES.  Of all people, she cites Dienekes:  the Jewish, Neanderthal/Aryan Nazi...
 
****************************************************
 
(I ran another analysis of my mtDNA on James Lick's mitohap site... It's quite apparent to me, that I might be in the X2m1 group, instead of W1e, after all.  What's so unusual about my mtDNA though, is that according to the rCRS, it contains motifs for both: X and W.  So, still confused and still need further testing by a reputable lab.  Unfortunately it seems that RCRS analysis isn't available from mitohap; but, I'll keep checking back, just in case it shows up there eventually).

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/11/lamp-ld-paper-and-software.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/11/paleoamerican-odyssey-conference-year.html

http://dna-explained.com/2012/11/12/family-tree-dna-conference-2012-native-american-focus-meeting/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080819042945AAoUcDE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_antigen_system
Blood factors such as "Diego" and "Rhesus" hold one of the main keys to solving the puzzles of Human origins.  I've already spoken quite vocally about the Rhesus factor, concerning all the misinformation and downright deceit surrounding the relevant facts... but, I don't know a whole lot about Diego, Duffy, and the many other ones.  Other areas of analyses which will prove very valuable, in my humble opinion, is going to be within the subjects of Primate anatomy / biology and the anatomy / biology of so-called "archaic" hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans -- both of which I of course believe are Hybrid Human sub-species.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference
I suppose your choice of wording should depend on what actually turns out to be the case, or at least on your own beliefs and theories regarding Human origins: Are Anatomically Modern Human beings in fact related to and descended (not evolved) from Apes?  In other words, were many or all of us hybridized with lower Primates at some time in the distant past?  That is my belief; in which case the word "hominid" would be correctly utilized.  I don't see how it can be otherwise, in light of the fact that some Modern Humans possess Neanderthal genes and some possess Denisovan genes... and presumably some of us might possess genes from neither one of those strange beasts.  That would point more so toward hybridization phenomena and events, not so much to evolution.

The alternate (and more popular, mainstream, accepted, I guess) theory is that of Evolution:  that we somehow magically and inexplicably morphed via nothing more than 'natural' (or sexual) 'selection' from those many and varied, so-called "archaic" creatures (whom many believe to have been the 'original' Human beings) to become what we are today -- a much different creature.  I find that very implausible, considering the vast differences within certain particulars of our associated DNA.  In which case (if somehow that's true), "hominin" would be more accurate.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/talk-by-christina-papageorgopoulou-on.html

http://www.searchforancestors.com/utility/

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/ancient-mtdna-haplogroup-x2-from.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/vikings-and-indians/pringle-text

Science is waking up to reality; but they're still fighting it tooth and nail.  This article admits that the evidence is "controversial" among scientists.  Why would scientists be emotionally disturbed about facts, truth, and reality?  Seems very unprofessional to me.  The answer can only be that the "controversy" is rooted in politics and governmental, authoritative pressures.  After all, Government funds most scientific research these days.

My Dec. 30, 2012 comment to the Deinekes' article: "My mtDNA was processed through Genographic Project and Family Tree DNA, and I found their treatment of myself as a Native American (through my direct maternal lineage) very unprofessional, even criminally discriminatory. Their main intent was apparently only to deny and discredit my family history, while profiting from it.  It is obvious to me, that they are biased toward Government and Tribal ~fiscal politics, regarding Native American ethnicity, identity.  Neither the Government nor Family Tree DNA can possibly know of EVERY mtDNA subclade that is authentically Native American (and mine is exceptionally, remarkably similar to the one or two Caucasoid subclades which they do acknowledge, and has other very uniquely distinguishing features).  They only acknowledge the most common, numerous groups, while ignoring rarer ones (forget about them ever figuring out which ones have already become extinct).  Yet they very wrongly took the insulting attitude that my family is somehow too stupid, crazy, or dishonest to believe.  Because of that, their genetics work lacks much credibility or respectability in my opinion.  You see the same patronizing, condescending attitude displayed here, by their representative who defends the company by accusing a client of being "mentally ill".

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/ancient-dna-from-tianyuan-cave.html#uds-search-results

http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/1055

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/haplogroupw/default.aspx?section=mtresults
W1e, "predicted, based on..."

32 comments:

  1. "Mary is wrong to insist that Cely Bird was not Cherokee, while admitting that we 'might' have Indian blood somewhere in the family tree"

    Mary is not denying that you are Cherokee. What she is saying is the your mitochondrial DNA is not Cherokee, it is of a type that is found most commonly in Europe and Western Asia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_W_(mtDNA)

    Quote:

    "Haplogroup W appears in Europe, West and South Asia. It is everywhere found as minority clade, with the highest concentration being in Northern Pakistan".

    It is therefore highly likely that somewhere in your ancestry a European woman was accepted into the Cherokee. What do you see as the problem with that? The early work on human mitochondrial DNA was done by US universities on indigenous Americans. That is why the haplogroups A, B, C and D are all from American. Those haplogroups were soon found in East Asia as well. And eventually haplogroup X was also found in Native Americans. This haplogroup is actually found in isolated patches from the Levant through Central Asia.

    "So, I recently joined Family Tree's mtDNA 'W' Project group, hoping to learn more about my very rare haplogroup. Once there however, I found no one else with my probable subclade: W1e"

    No. You are obviously not the only person with that haplogroup. It is listed in Phylotree, the accepted ancestral tree of mt-DNA haplogroups:

    http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

    From that tree you will see that W1e's closest relations are W1a, W1b, W1d, W1f and W1g. None of these are Native American.

    "Not one single person in my classification on mitosearch, has yet been found who carries the 16189C mutation like we do. 16189C is linked to a predisposition to diabetes in indigenous peoples worldwide"

    That statement is contradictory. If no-one else has the mutation how can it be 'linked to a predisposition to diabetes in indigenous peoples worldwide'? Anyway 16189c is in what is known as a 'control region mutation', a rapidly mutating region that is not used in the classification of haplogroups.

    "This map shows that Europoid (Caucasoid) DNA travelled to both Northern India and Northeastern Russia or Siberia, in ancient times".

    Very little of it reached northeastern Russia. Although the presence of haplogroup X in Native North Americans shows some did reach America. But W is unknown in Native Americans, apart from yourself, and another explanation is most likely in your case.

    "The most ancient remains found in North America, are Caucasoid. Who are they trying to kid? Just because Caucasoid Indians are now rare, doesn't mean we 'don't exist'."

    That statement would be more convincing if you could show that those ancient remains carried anything other than haplogroups A,B, C and D.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Terry -- don't troll here anymore. I will not waste my time arguing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Terry, all of your arguments are baseless; you build card houses and a slight breeze would blow them down. Anyone with intelligence should be able to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Without proper language comprehension and listening skills, Terry, you cannot present a logical and rational argument. You're only babbling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see I was wasting my time here. Typical religious fundamentalist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Terry, you're a nasty troll, who has ignored my first warning to leave me alone; and you've wasted not just your own time, but mine as well.

    Religion has nothing to do with this topic, Terry -- only the FACTS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous trolls are a plague on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Everyone should be required to post under their real name, then they would be held accountable for their misbehaviors.

    Everyone, no exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Religion has nothing to do with this topic, Terry -- only the FACTS".

    You are ignoring the facts.

    "Everyone should be required to post under their real name, then they would be held accountable for their misbehaviors. Everyone, no exceptions'

    My full name is Terrence Edward Toohill.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Terry, "You are ignoring the facts."; nor are you qualified to judge my case here. It's none of your business whether or not my ancestor was full-blooded Cherokee; yet you delusionally and stubbornly ~believe [religiously] that there exists some sort of 'proof' that "W1e" can't be Native American. There is no such proof, LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Terry, If a ton of gold was buried in your backyard, 50 feet deep, and you didn't KNOW about it -- does that mean it's not there? Lol, it's not there, according to ~your logic. But the fact is, if it's there, it doesn't matter whether or not you KNOW about it.

    What I know, is not the same as what you know, Terry. I know a lot more about my own case, than you do. I know the FACTS.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What Deinekes and other authoritarian types have suggested repeatedly, is that only those Native Americans with ~Asian genes have any right to self-identify as such. So, if your NA ancestors came from Asia: you're in (as far as they're concerned). But if ~some of your NA ancestors were "unfortunately" from Europe (like for example, the ones who carry your ~mtDNA or yDNA, or some of your autosomes): you're out.

    Obviously, they are distorting the very ~definition of Native American, and discriminating against certain types (Caucasoids) of Native Americans for some political reasons.

    Although my mtDNA (which is Native American) is ~Caucasoid, I'm sure I have other (Asian) NA DNA, too. I simply haven't been tested for them (I've only gotten my mtDNA tested). And with the bigotry and bias I've witnessed so far in the supposed "scientific" community -- I don't intend to. It would be a huge waste of my time and money. The results may prove interesting to me, personally, but my case would be excluded and mis-labelled (as it is currently); I won't allow that to happen again. I'd rather simply wholly abstain from participating in any of their future nonsense. If they aren't going to use the data ~properly, why provide it to them? Why fund their projects, when they are not true scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way, the person trolling me here (terryt) nearly always agrees with Deinekes in his comments on just about every subject thread covered on that blog. I have yet to find one comment of his which disagrees with Deinekes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "What Deinekes and other authoritarian types have suggested repeatedly, is that only those Native Americans with ~Asian genes have any right to self-identify as such. So, if your NA ancestors came from Asia: you're in (as far as they're concerned). But if ~some of your NA ancestors were 'unfortunately' from Europe (like for example, the ones who carry your ~mtDNA or yDNA, or some of your autosomes): you're out".

    That is not what they're saying at all. No-one disagrees with the concept it is perfectly possible to be 'Native American' (or any other indigenous group) and yet not have the appropriate mt-DNA haplogroup. Mitochondrial DNA does not define what ethnicity a person is.

    "By the way, the person trolling me here (terryt) nearly always agrees with Deinekes in his comments on just about every subject thread covered on that blog".

    On the contrary I have disagreed with Dienekes several times, but not over the subject here under discussion.

    If I am trolling here aren't you trolling at Dienekes' blog?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1 - If as you say "Mitochondrial DNA does not define what ethnicity a person is"... there would have been no arguments at all, Terry; because that's exactly what you, Deinekes, and the above-mentioned genealogist (and others) have attempted to do. You all have claimed that my mtDNA clade (W1e, or whatever classification it eventually fits into) cannot possibly be Native American. You've all said that. You all claim (erroneously), that it's "European". (In reality, it's "Caucasoid".)

    2 - Are you Deinekes' sock-puppet, Terry? Because you seem to answer questions on his blog for him. You seem to be speaking for him. Or do you just enjoy talking that much?

    3 - Trolls make baseless statements, so I'm not a troll. They do it deliberately, because they love to argue and hope to cause problems. They usually single people out, to harass. My comments are directed toward the discovery of ~truth, so I don't fit that category. Deinekes' blog only publishes comments on "approval", so it would be awfully hard to "troll" him, even if I wanted to. Is it not obvious to you, that I'm interested in learning about Anthropology? If not, it ought to be.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If as you say 'Mitochondrial DNA does not define what ethnicity a person is'... there would have been no arguments at all, Terry; because that's exactly what you, Deinekes, and the above-mentioned genealogist (and others) have attempted to do".

    None of us has claimed anything other than 'Mitochondrial DNA does not define what ethnicity a person is'.

    " You all have claimed that my mtDNA clade (W1e, or whatever classification it eventually fits into) cannot possibly be Native American".

    Yes, we have all claimed that to be so. The two comments are not mutually exclusive. You can very easily be Native American yet not have Native American mt-DNA.

    "You all claim (erroneously), that it's 'European'. (In reality, it's 'Caucasoid'.)"

    I'll quite happily use the term Caucasoid if it includes European.

    "Are you Deinekes' sock-puppet, Terry? Because you seem to answer questions on his blog for him. You seem to be speaking for him. Or do you just enjoy talking that much?"

    I feel it is important to educate people, and to correct their misconceptions.

    "My comments are directed toward the discovery of ~truth, so I don't fit that category".

    I too am devoted to the discovery of truth.

    " Is it not obvious to you, that I'm interested in learning about Anthropology? If not, it ought to be".

    Yes. I could see that. That is why I took the time to comment here originally.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You just contradicted yourself. Of course you can be NA and not have NA mtDNA, Terry -- anyone knows that, so you're only stating the ~obvious. But that's not the point or the topic here.

    "I'll quite happily use the term Caucasoid if it includes European".

    It includes not just Europeans, but many other groups. But what you've done is try to make the term, "Caucasoid" more limited to "Europeans". Why? That's very deceptive.

    Furthermore, if Caucasoids have been in North America for as long as I hypothesize -- my subclade (whatever it really is, in the final analysis) probably actually ~developed in the Americas: from its ancestral group: "N". And the fact that my subclade has zero exact matches anywhere in the world, along with other evidence of Caucasoids and their mtDNA in ancient America, tends to support my theory.

    "Are you Deinekes' sock-puppet, Terry? Because you seem to answer questions on his blog for him. You seem to be speaking for him. Or do you just enjoy talking that much?"

    "'I feel it is important to educate people, and to correct their misconceptions.'"

    Lmao. Nice side-step, Terry. It seems you're a dancer. However, I don't see how ~deception might serve to "correct... misconceptions." Most (nearly all, in fact) of your comments are heavily laced in both: deception and misconception.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Note: I removed the first comment, because I had mis-spelled "Caucasoid".

    ReplyDelete
  20. The first comment that I made today, that is. All the rest is the same. I don't know of any way to edit my comments, and I guess that's just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4107532/1/

    ("Who is Dienekes Pontikos?" -- no one really seems to know much about him, other than that he's apparently Greek and/or Turkish. He's evidently fluent in Greek. His scholastic and work credentials aren't immediately available. My sources have recently -- like, yesterday -- reported someone visiting my blog from a Turkish language website.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. He obviously wishes to emphasize Native American's Mongoloid origins, while minimizing, or really falsely ~negating, our Caucasoid origins. Hmm, why?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Strange behavior, for an "Anthropologist".

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You just contradicted yourself. Of course you can be NA and not have NA mtDNA"

    I did not say that. I said you can be NA and not have NA mt-DNA. What I tried to explain is that it is perfectly possible to have a majority NA-DNA but not have NA mt-DNA.

    "It includes not just Europeans, but many other groups. But what you've done is try to make the term, "Caucasoid" more limited to "Europeans". Why? That's very deceptive".

    From my perspective 'European' consists of everything west of the Urals.

    "Furthermore, if Caucasoids have been in North America for as long as I hypothesize"

    YOU hypothesize? Does anyone else hypothesize such a theory?

    "my subclade (whatever it really is, in the final analysis) probably actually ~developed in the Americas: from its ancestral group: 'N'".

    Extremely unlikely when you consider that all its closest relations are found thousands of miles from America.

    "the fact that my subclade has zero exact matches anywhere in the world"

    It has any number of close matches in western Eurasia though. Mutation can be rapid and many people have an mt-DNA that varies from their mother's. That must be the case because otherwise mt-DNA could not be made to fit any sort of phylogeny.

    "other evidence of Caucasoids and their mtDNA in ancient America"

    What 'other evidence of Caucasoids and their mtDNA in ancient America'?

    "I don't see how ~deception might serve to 'correct... misconceptions.' Most (nearly all, in fact) of your comments are heavily laced in both: deception and misconception".

    Comments such as?

    "My sources have recently -- like, yesterday -- reported someone visiting my blog from a Turkish language website".

    Unlikely to be Dienekes as he seems to be slightly anti-Turk. If it is a contributor to Dienekes' blog it is probaly the person who calls himself 'Onur'. He is Turkish.

    "He obviously wishes to emphasize Native American's Mongoloid origins, while minimizing, or really falsely ~negating, our Caucasoid origins. Hmm, why?"

    As far as I know he does not deny Native Americans' Altai connections although the evidence shows the majority of mt-DNA, apart from X, is East Asian. Y-DNA C3 is also East Asian although Y-DNA Q is at least Altaian although Dienekes' blog on Iran shows Q may have spread from there. Have you seen that post?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry about the first part of that comment. I got confused between your use of NA and DNA. But in what way have I contradicted myself?

    ReplyDelete
  26. What is Native American mtDNA? How is it defined? Is it as Terry, Dienekes, and a few others assert: A, B, C, D, & X2a, to the exclusion of all others?

    No, the TRUTH is rather that Native American mtDNA is ~ANY~ mtDNA which was already present in the American continents prior to Columbus' first voyage... whether ~known to modern "scientists", or ~not.

    Those morons pretend they know all there is to know about it, lol. Surely they don't believe it conclusively, based on "NO EVIDENCE"? (Yet, that's exactly what they repeatedly claim).

    However, they do seem to confidently believe that they can easily pull a 'fast one' on the rest of us. Proves how dishonest and ignorant they are.

    I believe that future research into Human genetic ~admixtures, if done with complete objectivity, will shatter quite a number of their current migration theories -- and smash a few of their premature conclusions concerning Human origins, too. I believe it will open some eyes to the ~real definition of "Native American".

    There are currently innumerable Americans who are in fact Native Americans, but have been lied to all their lives about it. They've been denied their NA ethnicity while being labelled strictly "black" or "white" (neither of which are even races at all, but mere ~colors).

    Some of those people (like myself) know who they are; but many of them have already forgotten, or prefer to avoid the controversy (like my dear mother).

    Admixture research will probably even destroy Darwin's theory of Evolution, which is already on extremely thin ice. The only thing propping that one up, is their fanatical religious ~faith in it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "No, the TRUTH is rather that Native American mtDNA is ~ANY~ mtDNA which was already present in the American continents prior to Columbus' first voyage... whether ~known to modern 'scientists', or ~not".

    There may be a grain of truth in that statement but W1e is extremely unlikely to have arrived in America until some time after Columbus did. I don't know if you've ever seen this:

    http://www.thecid.com/w1.htm

    You will see from that where haplogroup W is found. And specifically for W1e:

    " W1 consists of the following major subgroups: The purely Finnish types: W1a (defined by coding region mutations 05495 12669); W1b (defined by coding region mutations 04928 and 09612, and HVR2 mutation 00227); and W1e (defined by the 08659 and 08887 coding region mutations, and having the 16295 mutation in HVR1) These are almost entirely confined to Finland, with a few results in adjacent areas of neighboring countries (Norway, Sweden, Russia). Both are young subgroups that diversified less than 3,000 years ago".

    So your mitochondrial DNA most likely comes from somewhere near Finland. At the earliest it may have come in with Viking arrival in North America.

    "Surely they don't believe it conclusively, based on 'NO EVIDENCE'? (Yet, that's exactly what they repeatedly claim)".

    There is any amount of evidence that the only pre-European mt-DNA haplogroups in America are derived versions of A, B, C, D and X. The naming of the haplogroups should even give you a clue as to the truth of that. The first haplogroups given names were those discovered in Native Americans. The next few were found when scientists tried to discover where the first four came from. E is Southeast Asian, F and G are East Asian. It is only with H that the search moved wider with the discovery of a South Asian haplogroup.

    "However, they do seem to confidently believe that they can easily pull a 'fast one' on the rest of us. Proves how dishonest and ignorant they are".

    Who is trying to pull the 'fast one' in this discussion? Scientists rely on evidence. You are relying on oral history with no supporting evidence.

    "I believe that future research into Human genetic ~admixtures, if done with complete objectivity, will shatter quite a number of their current migration theories -- and smash a few of their premature conclusions concerning Human origins, too. I believe it will open some eyes to the ~real definition of 'Native American'".

    Have you already made up your mind what such research will eventually show? Ahh. I see:

    "Admixture research will probably even destroy Darwin's theory of Evolution, which is already on extremely thin ice. The only thing propping that one up, is their fanatical religious ~faith in it".

    Evolution is not a 'theory' in the sense that you wish to use the word. It has been amply demonstrated, except to those who do not wish to see.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, it sure is a mere theory. Diversification doesn't add up to evolution. Name one creature that has been scientifically ~proven to have evolved from a lower to a ~higher form. Neanderthal is an example of devolution, not evolution. They're hybrids.

    3000 yrs is well prior to Columbus' first voyage... so, I was right the first time: I'm a Native American / Viking? Lol, I knew it.

    W1e originated in the region of the ancient Babylonian empire (look at the ancient migration routes map on the ~homepage of the same website you cited in your comment). They migrated North and West into Central Europe, before some of them headed up into Scandinavia (Sweden, before Finland -- which is where some of the MODERN remnants are most concentrated), and some ended up in Greece, of all places.

    I have no exact matches at all so far, anywhere. I have near matches with people who claim ~ancestry from Italy, Sicily, Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, and AMERICA (like me) -- but none from Finland.

    Furthermore according to the same website, ~W1 is now considered ~ancestral for the group (instead of plain W, which they now say isn't even in the same group anymore). Also, I'm not even certain that I'm really W1e anyway. I need more testing, but there's really no point, since it's not real science after all.

    And if my subclade ~descended from another ancestral group -- say, "N2" or the earlier "N" -- which was ~already ~present in the Americas, but is for some reason now nearly extinct (or simply ignored, or overlooked by geneticists), then my ancestry could very well have preceded the Vikings anyway.

    There are many Indian legends about the tribes warring against Caucasoid types in ancient America (long before Columbus). According to the stories, which are shared by several different tribes, the Mongoloid types did their best to exterminate the Caucasoids. But if that's true, there is always a good chance that at least some of our mtDNA survived those particular genocides.

    Every person tested gives an "oral history". No one has any more to support their stories than I do. No one tested is ever asked to produce documentation for their claims, nor are they often discounted and their data excluded from studies, like Native Americans. Only Native Americans get that sort of treatment; I know that I'm not alone in that regard. I actually have quite a lot of evidence that I'm NA (through my direct maternal lineage, thus my mtDNA). Choose not to believe it, if you like.

    The problem with DNA research for Native Americans (regardless of how they inherited those genes -- whether maternal, paternal, both, or other lineages), is that geneticists are applying the government's LEGAL definitions to the term, "Native American". That's not science. That's how you got ABCDX -- by manipulating the data to fit tribal enrollees (some of whom aren't even NA either: some enrolled fraudulently years ago).

    Also, the data which produced that 'conclusion' (ABCDX) which you supposed scientists so fathfully believe, is extremely limited. Who even knows what tribes they came from? As I recall, it was from just a very few tribes, and even fewer samples. Every tribe and even each clan within the tribes, have their own unique DNA signatures. It's a big mistake to try to lump all Native Americans into one homogenous category.

    Liars will lie; and scientists will obey their government or corporate masters; but I know the truth. And a "grain" of ~truth, is true nevertheless.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Neanderthal is an example of devolution, not evolution. They're hybrids".

    There is no evidence at all to support that statement. They are a line of humans who separated from our line between half a million and a million years ago.

    "3000 yrs is well prior to Columbus' first voyage... so, I was right the first time: I'm a Native American / Viking? Lol, I knew it".

    Vikings didn't get to America anything like 3000 years ago. One thousand at the most.

    "W1e originated in the region of the ancient Babylonian empire (look at the ancient migration routes map on the ~homepage of the same website you cited in your comment)."

    The migration maps do not show that W1e originated anywhere near Babylon. Possibly W as a basal haplogroup evolved there. And almost certainly N2 evolved very near there. W1e is (quote) 'almost entirely confined to Finland, with a few results in adjacent areas of neighboring countries'. How do you get 'Babylon' from that?

    "I have no exact matches at all so far, anywhere. I have near matches with people who claim ~ancestry from Italy, Sicily, Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, and AMERICA (like me) -- but none from Finland".

    Vikings reached all those regions, and so your near relatives ancestors spread with the Vikings one thousand years ago. And your mt-DNA most likely came from Ireland, Germany, England or Scotland.

    "I need more testing, but there's really no point, since it's not real science after all".

    It's only 'not real science' because it conflicts with what you would like to believe.

    "And if my subclade ~descended from another ancestral group -- say, 'N2' or the earlier 'N' -- which was ~already ~present in the Americas"

    N2 has never been discovered in the Americas, and is never likely to be. Unless in a recent immigrant from eastern Europe. So you're making things up here.

    "but is for some reason now nearly extinct (or simply ignored, or overlooked by geneticists), then my ancestry could very well have preceded the Vikings anyway".

    You're clutching at straws now. Unless you're trying to claim humans originated in America. All the evidence shows that is extremely unlikely.

    "There are many Indian legends about the tribes warring against Caucasoid types in ancient America (long before Columbus). According to the stories, which are shared by several different tribes, the Mongoloid types did their best to exterminate the Caucasoids".

    There are also stories about tribes emerging from hollow logs, men from one end and women from the other. I presume you take those stories seriously too.

    "Every person tested gives an 'oral history'. No one has any more to support their stories than I do".

    Oral histories are not reliable for anything like two hundred years, let alone any longer period. Genetic testing is far more reliable.

    "nor are they often discounted and their data excluded from studies, like Native Americans. Only Native Americans get that sort of treatment"

    Complete rubbish. Many people have been shown to have faulty oral histories once their genes have been tested. Most accept they've been mistaken, but not Native Americans obviously.

    "the data which produced that 'conclusion' (ABCDX) which you supposed scientists so fathfully believe, is extremely limited. Who even knows what tribes they came from? As I recall, it was from just a very few tribes, and even fewer samples".

    Many samples throughout America, not just from the USA.

    "Choose not to believe it, if you like".

    I choose not to believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. One thousand years is well before Columbus.

    You didn't look at the map, I see. The one that clearly shows W1e originating near the vicinity of the Babylonian empire.

    http://www.thecid.com/
    Near the bottom of the page, it clearly shows W1e, along with W1a,b and W1f -- all originating from that region. Nowhere on this map does it show the origins of N or N2 or any groups other than the Ws.

    Just because my DNA ~may have come over from Europe with Vikings or other Caucasoid groups, does not make me any less Native American. Obviously, my gg-grandmother was Cherokee: she knew it, the family knew it; and she looked, spoke, joked, behaved, cooked, sewed and dressed like one, too.

    You didn't ~know my gg-grandmother; we did.

    It's not real science, because scientists have been applying the government's LEGAL definition of NA to their research, and that's not science, that's POLITICS. Also it's not science, because the government funded researchers have manipulated the data to fit their own preferences and beliefs concerning Native Americans. They ignore the FACT that Caucasoid types were here prior to Columbus.

    "...never likely to be..." LOL, of course -- if you have anything to do with it.

    "...extremely unlikely..." Yet know one knows for certain.

    There is nothing ~irrational or ~metaphorical about the war legends I cited here. However, your hollow log legends are obviously metaphorical and/or symbolic.

    Genetic testing is obviously UNRELIABLE, in the hands of idiots.

    We don't accept what is obviously false. Why should we? Unfortunately, most people of average or lower intelligence will passively accept anything an "authority" tells them. It's pathetic.

    "Many samples"? Not nearly enough, and only the ones which fit the government's LEGAL definition of NA; so, very ~biased.

    What a surprise, you choose not to believe it. Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "You didn't look at the map, I see. The one that clearly shows W1e originating near the vicinity of the Babylonian empire".

    The map shows no such thing. You may have looked at the map but your knowledge of geography is obviously very limited. The only W haplogroup anywhere near Babylon is W1d. W1e's origin is shown as northwest of the Black Sea, miles from anywhere the Babylonian empire was able to reach.

    "Near the bottom of the page, it clearly shows W1e, along with W1a,b and W1f -- all originating from that region".

    Again your knowledge of geography lets you down. W's origin is shown in that map as east of the Caspian Sea, perhaps a s far as northern Pakistan. Again way north of the Babylonian empire. Quote:

    "The first member of what is referred to as the W haplogroup, whom we refer to as Wilma, was born between 15,000 and 19,000 years ago, probably in what is now northwest India or northern Pakistan".

    The same map shows W1e way up north near Finland.

    "It's not real science, because scientists have been applying the government's LEGAL definition of NA to their research, and that's not science, that's POLITICS".

    It is not politics. Scientists are trying to find out who the earliest American were. The evidence is overwhelming that haplogroup W was not involved.

    "Also it's not science, because the government funded researchers have manipulated the data to fit their own preferences and beliefs concerning Native Americans".

    How about supplying some evidence for that statement?

    "Genetic testing is obviously UNRELIABLE, in the hands of idiots".

    I have been involved in genetic testing of cattle and poultry, and it is very reliable. It has also been very reliable in the case of research of Polynesian origins. Perhaps it is only in relation to research on USA Native Americans is it at all 'unreliable'.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Circular arguments with trolls, are like reasoning with toddlers. You're way off topic, Terry. And you totally ignore any facts which neutralize your argument. But at least you admit that "research on USA Native Americans is... 'unreliable'."

    ReplyDelete